State v. Martin, 35073
| Decision Date | 19 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 35073,35073 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marvin Thomas MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles W. Medley, Farmington, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, William F. Arnet, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, John W. Reid, II, Pros. Atty., Madison County, Fredericktown, for plaintiff-respondent.
The defendant, Marvin Thomas Martin, was convicted by a jury of stealing over fifty dollars and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Defendant has appealed.
Defendant raises two Points Relied On: (1) that the court committed reversible error in its opening statement to the jury panel that the defendant was charged under the Habitual Criminal Act; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction that defendant aided and abetted in the offense of stealing.
The panel of twenty-four jurors was sworn. The court proceeded to make the following statement to the jury panel:
'Ladies and gentlemen, the case for trial today is one in which the State of missouri charges Marvin Thomas Martin with stealing over $50.00 under what is known as the Habitual Criminal Act. * * *'
The defendant promptly moved for a mistrial and the court denied his motion. The jury of twelve persons was chosen from this panel. The defendant did not testify.
We shall deal first with the defendant's attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of aiding and abetting in the offense of stealing. The jury could reasonably find that the defendant and another man, identified as Gregory Purnell, got out of an auto in front of Mr. Wengler's store and entered the store; that the defendant was purchasing some wine from Wengler when Wengler noticed Purnell emptying the safe in the rear of the store; that about $320.00 was taken from the safe; that Wengler was attempting to romove the money from Purnell's person when Purnell ran to the defendant; that the defendant said that Purnell was his brother and he thought he was attempting to remove the money from that the defendant grabbed Purnell and kicked and shoved him out the door; that Wengler told the defendant not to leave because he was calling the police; that defendant ran out the door grabbing the bottle of wine as he left; that the defendant left in the same auto as Purnell; and, that the police arrested the defendant when they stopped this auto and found money lying beside the road where that auto had been seen moments before the arrest. We believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kerr
...in evidence had been stolen 'because it constituted evidence of another crime,' and tended to prove nothing in the case, State v. Martin, 506 S.W.2d 473 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Burnett, 429 S.W.2d 239 (Mo.1968); Mo.Dig., Criminal Law k369; and (VI) in admitting Exhibit 11, an employment app......
-
State v. Francis, KCD
...during voir dire that a person originally jointly charged with the defendant had pleaded guilty to the offense. In State v. Martin, 506 S.W.2d 473, 474(4) (Mo.App.1974), the trial court told the venire prior to voir dire that the defendant was charged under the Habitual Criminal Act. In Sta......
-
State v. Pernell
...S.W.2d 459 (Mo.App.1975). `It has the misleading probative force of tending to prove one crime by proving another.' State v. Martin, 506 S.W.2d 473, 474 (Mo. App.1974)." The Williams court then declared an "intent exception" to the rule, permitting evidence that was "logically pertinent" si......
-
State v. Key, KCD
...486 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.1972), and State v. Holbert, 416 S.W.2d 129 (Mo.1967); or brand defendant as a prior offender as in State v. Martin, 506 S.W.2d 473 (Mo.App.1974). Grant of a mistrial is reserved to those situations where no action short of a mistrial will avoid prejudice to a defendant's......